ArticleIntestinal research2024
A survey of current practices in post-polypectomy surveillance in Korea.
Article in Intestinal research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison between endoscopic resection and transanal surgery for treatment of rectal tumors: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Intestinal research · 2026Review
- Is cap still useful for colon adenoma detection rate improvement in the artificial intelligence era?Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Extracellular Vesicles as a Platform for Predicting Cancer Risk in Patients with Adenomas and Polyps of the Colon with Obesity.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Chronic Kidney Disease Increases Risk of Delayed Post-Polypectomy Bleeding: A Large-Scale Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsWe investigated the clinical practice patterns of post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance among Korean endoscopists.
methodsIn a web-based survey conducted between September and November 2021, participants were asked about their preferred surveillance intervals and the patient age at which surveillance was discontinued. Adherence to the recent guidelines of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) was also analyzed.
resultsIn total, 196 endoscopists completed the survey. The most preferred first surveillance intervals were: a 5-year interval after the removal of 1-2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm; a 3-year interval after the removal of 3-10 tubular adenomas < 10 mm, adenomas ≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous or villous adenomas, ≤ 20 hyperplastic polyps < 10 mm, 1-4 sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) < 10 mm, hyperplastic polyps or SSLs ≥ 10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas; and a 1-year interval after the removal of adenomas with highgrade dysplasia, >10 adenomas, 5-10 SSLs, and SSLs with dysplasia. In piecemeal resections of large polyps ( > 20 mm), surveillance colonoscopy was mostly preferred after 1 year for adenomas and 6 months for SSLs. The mean USMSTF guideline adherence rate was 30.7%. The largest proportion of respondents (40.8%-55.1%) discontinued the surveillance at the patient age of 80-84 years.
conclusionsA significant discrepancy was observed between the preferred post-polypectomy surveillance intervals and recent international guidelines. Individualized measures are required to increase adherence to the guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.